Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

M=

Posts

The rifle, something something phallic symbol, engendered power to the women allowing her to subvert gender roles and take power over the patriarchy, something something.

It is always stereotypically the rifle that the women would go for right?

Or.

The woman taking the rifle implies that she is to weak and or unskilled to get into or operate well in the shorter range required by the handgun, so she takes the handgun to upset stereotypes blah blah blah.

The real answer is the man has sex with the woman at gunpoint, because women are sex objects am i rite?

Or alternatively, "SOMEONE will at least theoretically take fault with any decision you make, so just try to be fair and write good characters."

If people want them to make games with non-banal stories, they need to demand games with non-banal stories and to stop buying games with banal stories.

I don't know why there's a responsibility to be an ethical consumer, but no responsibility to be an ethical producer.

Good luck here MrMr. Last time I tried to argue that companies have an obligation to more then just their shareholders and the law I got dogpiled.

It certainly can't be controversial in the single-ownership case: if I own a game studio, then I can do whatever I want with it.

I see it as a defect of corporate governance that public companies, by contrast, are compelled to maximize shareholder profit. Although I also understand that provision to be one of the few things keeping management in check (not that it succeeds, but you know).

The rifle, something something phallic symbol, engendered power to the women allowing her to subvert gender roles and take power over the patriarchy, something something.

It is always stereotypically the rifle that the women would go for right?

Or.

The woman taking the rifle implies that she is to weak and or unskilled to get into or operate well in the shorter range required by the handgun, so she takes the handgun to upset stereotypes blah blah blah.

The real answer is the man has sex with the woman at gunpoint, because women are sex objects am i rite?

Or alternatively, "SOMEONE will at least theoretically take fault with any decision you make, so just try to be fair and write good characters."

Or alternatively, "if you write good characters then it's not important who carries which gun."

So, this is bullshit. This website here... blocked at work as "news/media", but I can get to cnn.com.

I can't get to The Onion, but I can get to Foxnews...

This shit is wrong.

Basically some dude gambled away 127 million dollars over a year in Vegas casinos. He's bringing suit because allegedly he was comped alcohol and pain killers to lube his judgment.

If it's true, then he may have a case. I mean, if the casino is like, here have this free alcohol and sit down at this table. Just give me your card and we'll give you some chips. Yeah, it'll be alright.

Gambling is an addiction, and some people can develop problems. On the other hand, fucker should've saved himself the time and hassle and given me the money.

Y'know, I don't want to be all "hargle bargle vegetarian", but I find it amusing that this was said in the games and feminism thread in relation to the video game industry, and no one gave it shit, yet when I propose people do the same thing for eating meat I get countless rebuttals:

Because America has a massive hard on for free market capitalism and as such all responsibility lies with the consumer rather than the producer, the producers are only there to serve the needs of the consumer as dictated by their spending habits, people are still buying games with banal stories therefore they are happy with banal stories and there's no financial incentive for the producer to change.

Basically companies have no morals or conscience and seen no need to change their behaviour unless it profits them or they are forced by eternal pressures.

To the bolded specifically- If the responsibility in the market of video gaming lies with the consumer in the American Market, does not also the responsibility in the market of meat consumption lie with the consumer?

Y'know, I don't want to be all "hargle bargle vegetarian", but I find it amusing that this was said in the games and feminism thread in relation to the video game industry, and no one gave it shit, yet when I propose people do the same thing for eating meat I get countless rebuttals:

Because America has a massive hard on for free market capitalism and as such all responsibility lies with the consumer rather than the producer, the producers are only there to serve the needs of the consumer as dictated by their spending habits, people are still buying games with banal stories therefore they are happy with banal stories and there's no financial incentive for the producer to change.

Basically companies have no morals or conscience and seen no need to change their behaviour unless it profits them or they are forced by eternal pressures.

To the bolded specifically- If the responsibility in the market of video gaming lies with the consumer in the American Market, does not also the responsibility in the market of meat consumption lie with the consumer?

Did psycojester specifically give you shit about it?

Because there's far too much 'people around here say X' used in debates here.

All the people who aren't feminists have made me hate feminism. That's kinda unfair.

of you.

Seriously Abdhy, you have been on a roll for saying some really patently stupid shit (even compared to your normal stuff) that borders on trolling dude. Take a breather and don't just knee-jerk an incentive statement just to rile people up. This is coming from someone who said, a long time ago

Y'know, I don't want to be all "hargle bargle vegetarian", but I find it amusing that this was said in the games and feminism thread in relation to the video game industry, and no one gave it shit, yet when I propose people do the same thing for eating meat I get countless rebuttals:

Because America has a massive hard on for free market capitalism and as such all responsibility lies with the consumer rather than the producer, the producers are only there to serve the needs of the consumer as dictated by their spending habits, people are still buying games with banal stories therefore they are happy with banal stories and there's no financial incentive for the producer to change.

Basically companies have no morals or conscience and seen no need to change their behaviour unless it profits them or they are forced by eternal pressures.

To the bolded specifically- If the responsibility in the market of video gaming lies with the consumer in the American Market, does not also the responsibility in the market of meat consumption lie with the consumer?

Did psycojester specifically give you shit about it?

Because there's far too much 'people around here say X' used in debates here.